Those are only an issue because Els needs US number format to put the data into the database. Commas break everything.

Exactly!

What am i doing wrong? If I feed to Google maps search the normal Degree/minute/second format as is used across the UNESCO WEb site it won't accept them - e.g  N 51°22´53"  W 02°21´31" (and this was what I had always understood - but followed your advice above anyway!). I have tried removing the special characters but still no go - it apparently will only accept the input of decimal coordinates? Remember I am not wanting it to give me decimal coordinate for a named place but to identify a place from non decimla coordinates AND convert them
It really would significantly speed the job if all these UNESCO coordinates could be quickly and easily converted into the required format
MW - I have tried Earthpoint but cant even get it to respond!!

Works perfectly fine for me in google maps (search field) and jumps directly to Bath.

In general, there are way too many notations, I have spotted 5 or so on the Unesco site alone ... Germany is also using something with Northing and Easting... Terrible. I use this whenever I have no other choice (but slow, press reset after each conversion):

http://www.synnatschke.de/geo-tools/coordinate-converter.php

It obviously doesn't like me!!
"We could not find N 51°22´53" W 02°21´31"
Make sure your search is spelled correctly. Try adding a city, state, or zip code."

I think I have fixed Iran now. Maybe someone can check.

Iran does have 136 locations now (combination of WHS and TWHS). France and Spain will be worse, although the current 937 WHS locations of Spain are not that slow. So maybe the combination of WHS and TWHS querying causes the slowdown?


Yes please. SQL would be nice if it isn't too much trouble.

At first (and second!) sight everything appears to be in the right place.

Looks good as well to have both WHS and TWHS on the same page - and the dork/light grey works well.
The time to populate isn't too bad IMO

Algeria has been added to the maps now too: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/testt/country.php?id=2

And I have also now been able to upload the data set of meltwaterfalls. This includes 688 main locations for some 40% of the TWHS.

Here are the pages for the main countries that already are under investigation by some of you:
France: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/testt/country.php?id=39
Spain: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/testt/country.php?id=100
Germany: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/testt/country.php?id=41
Poland: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/testt/country.php?id=88
UK: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/testt/country.php?id=113
Austria: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/testt/country.php?id=6

To prepare for my upcoming trip, I'll take on the TWHS coverage of Egypt.

While working on the French T list a few issue came up that we should discuss:
1. "Actualisation", example: WWI memorials
it was reported recently, that the number of proposed sites were reduced. I found this document with a detailed list on the candidature website:
http://verdun-meuse.fr/images/pages/Dossierfinalseptembre11.pdf
In this case I would suggest to take the more recent list instead of the subsites listed on the official UNESCO entry

2. "Guess", example: Carnac
No locations are specified on the T list entry. It is quite sure that the Carnac alignements will be the part of the nomination, but also that there will be other sites. The candidature website lists about 30 locations, but I doubt that all of them will be part of the final nomination.
http://www.megalithes-morbihan.com/sites.html
So three options:
a. set a pin only on the alignements (and eventually provide a link to the above mentioned website similar to the "official websites" for WHS)
b. add a few more, e.g. those I mentioned in my review http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/twhs.php?id=224
c. include all from the candidature website
I would suggest a.

3. "Guess", example: Ensemble de grottes à concrétions du Sud de la France
No information on the T list entry. It has been nominated twice, but was withdrawn twice. I found an old article which specified 18 caves. I think it is unlikely that the site will ever be inscribed. So, should we leave it empty, include all 18 or only a few that are open to the public (e.g. Aven d'Orgnac, very popular with tourists)?
http://www.tourmag.com/Les-concretions-des-grottes-francaises-bientot-classees-au-Pat rimoine-Mondial_a13586.html

4. example: Les villes bastionnées des Pays-Bas du nord-ouest de l'Europe
Similar to no. 3. No chance for inscription, I guess, and no information on locations. But there are some "guesses": Le Quesnoy, Gravelines. So: leave empty?

I'm looking forward to your comments. France and Austria are almost finished, but surprisingly the weather is nice in Graz today, so I will do some outdoor activities and send my list tomorrow.

Similar to the Great Spas issue - It generally seems better to provide the most up-to-date picture even if different from the UNESCO Web site?
Incidentally - I notice that the French version of this T List site has, as its only "Site link", a newspaper article (in Dutch!) about the BELGIAN memorials whilst the Belgian version had no site links at all! Swap these and add the French candidature website as provided by Hubert to the French Memorials page.


Again - wherever people identify a Candidature Web site it seems worth highlighting this and getting it added to the "Site Links". I would suggest similarly with any articles?
As for choosing between Hubert's a/b/c - I am bit torn between not showing everything we "know" and having to make too many "guesses" (and also causing a lot more work when we are not short of that anyway!). Since all of the locations are in the same general area the issue of passing by a location in some distant area of France without knowing doesn't really arise. I think we could hope that, if we have provided the candidature Web site details, then anyone visiting and wanting to ensure they cover all locations would use it to inform their visit. So I go for a.


Generally I would favour having at least 1 location with a "grey dot" for every T List site if we can do it without going too far into the "guessing game". Anyone looking at the maps of France would then see that there is a T List site in that area. If this site has been nominated twice it can't be as "unknown" as for instance the Iranian Silk routes site was where we just had to leave it "empty". I think I would go for 1 or a few public locations but wouldn't die in a ditch over it!


Probably tips over too far towards "guessing"? Leave blank? Though, I suppose the argument as above of trying wherever "reasonable" to avoid leaving a T List site without a single "grey dot" as a "placer" on the country map could apply?

I agree with Solivagant.
Try to stay away from wild guesses, resulting in planting a flag somewhere in an empty part of the map (except when covering large areas such as deserts or seas of course).

Just an update: Solivagant will take Turkey

See also already the coverage by meltwaterfalls:
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/testt/country.php?id=109